Whose Countries Are These Anyway?

While we go about our daily lives….yes, maybe paid work, volunteering at the soup kitchen, bingo, taking the boat to the lake, checking out the fashions at the mall, stopping at the hospital to visit, measuring the kitchen for new counter-tops…..our leaders seem to live in a world of their own. I am extremely distressed by the frequent use of the word “enemy” or references to dire consequences from Iran if we don’t bomb Syria.

Politicians, media reporters and pundits keep using this language which is out of touch and out dated. If there ever was a time when Iran, the country was a true threat to ours it certainly hasn’t been any time recently. I do not include occasional posturing on their part that was done in response to posturing on our part.

While Iranians go about their daily lives..well I have to guess about the rural folk, that the children are helping with the family livestock, the women are cooking and working on arranging a marriage deal for their eldest son, the men running market stalls and farming….I know the urban folk are likely checking out fashions in the malls, following sports, taking the new baby out for a stroll in the brand new stroller, flirting in the café with the young man a student saw on campus, texting friends at home and abroad, interviewing a new cook, having political discussions over tea or coffee in the cafes. … our media and leaders feed a foolish notion of what Iran is like and what their intentions are.

Will our leaders now be forced to see Iran in a more realistic light as the new President Hassan Rouhani continues to make gestures of reconciliation toward the US? And the government itself has just taken an official step or two by such actions as releasing some political prisoners? I have heard a few semi-conciliatory remarks on the news today.

Here is the situation if you have not followed the relations between the two countries. We did interfere in and disrupt the democratic process in

New Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, reformist

Iran with the result a democratically elected prime minister was deposed. We did this with collusion from Great Britain in order that Western oil companies might be free to exploit Iranian oil without regard for just compensation to the Iranian people for that which is theirs. In place of the prime minister, we left the modernizing Shah. Unfortunately he was also a cruel dictator who imprisoned, killed and/or tortured many in the middle and upper class leadership of the country.

Later, of course, some Iranians took some Americans hostage around the time the Iranians had a revolution against the Shah. The only place people could gather during his regime was in mosques so fundamentalist Muslim clergy dominated the revolution and the ensuing government. Many Iranians are disillusioned by the undemocratic rule of the mullahs. (There is partial democracy with elections that are controlled to some extent by the theocratic leadership.)

So there has been a tendency for some Iranians to have a bad taste in their mouth or at least some suspicions regarding the US and its intentions. The American people, fed by the wrong kind of press and political leadership, have tended to bear a grudge for way too long regarding the hostage taking. And nowadays we have been trying to draw a line in the sand ( a red line, no doubt!) with regard to Iran’s nuclear power research and development.

Just as I was beginning to write on this topic, Iran entered the news cycle in a big way because of the new president coming to address the United Nations. Some news reports are softening a little bit. The real point is that neither country intends (Lindsay Graham and other irresponsible hawks, notwithstanding) to attack the other. In the Persian (Iranian) environment there are always going to be a few loose cannon as well (e.g. their immediate past president). Iran and the United States have some serious bones of contention just as we have such with Russia or China or other nations from time to time. These disagreements can be handled at the assertive diplomacy level. Iran may not truly want to use its nuclear development to arm weapons. No doubt some in Iran feel more secure if other nations in their neighborhood think they do. Israel has been very hostile and some Sunni nations are hostile because Iran is basically a Shia Muslim nation.

Okay. I probably should have titled this piece “A Moving Target”. Now we see on TV that President Rouhani has declared Iran will never develop a (nuclear) bomb and that the Supreme Leader is flexible. Well, essentially the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei has said for years that nuclear weapons are “un-Islamic”. Is it peculiar that our politicians rarely refer to that or suggest that maybe we ought to test it out as a theory of reconciliation?

Oh, back to the point at hand. While, generally speaking everyday Americans and everyday Iranians have little against each other (unless an immediate threat and issue of self-defense is raised by the opposite nation), our leaders just banged away at jingoistic type rhetoric. And if they are slowly changing their tone and character it is pretty much because Iran has taken the lead. And they have offered the olive branch many times before, and I and some of my sister bloggers have cited these cases. I’m just going to say it one more time with reference to Herat where the US Consulate was just attacked by jihadist forces. At the time we invaded Afghanistan, Iran was busy trying to counter the Taliban forces in the region of Herat. They find the Taliban a threat. We could have built on that relationship of a common “enemy”, but the Bush administration preferred to make Iran an “enemy” right along with the Taliban. If Iran had been working with us in that region of Herat…which was the area where they had some influence already…I think the Consulate attack would have been unlikely.

If our opinion makers and decision makers are to come to the table in the “Janie-come-lately” mode, so be it. Just come. We can use public opinion and good, informed diplomacy to de-escalate tensions. Even the issue regarding Syria and Hezbollah need to be addressed from the standpoint of equally sovereign nations looking for the common ground from which to proceed. And let me remind one and all that some rhetoric from Iran and some behavior from Hezbollah (which wins civil, democratic elections regularly in Lebanon where they often provide the best local government services in a peaceful way) would be greatly reduced if we held Israel accountable for continued West Bank illegal settlements and other tools they use to repress Palestinians in their own land. Again, a two state solution is not a perfect solution. However, it is a solution as opposed to the status quo which is a problem.

If more Americans can understand Iran better and can lead the public servants better (as the country has done with regard to Syrian bombing) perhaps we can all be excited by the thrill of increasing peace and more opportunities to travel in one more country. It also may be possible to direct more resources to real and critical human needs whether in the refugee camps outside Syria or the homeless encampments in Silicon Valley.

Linda Muralidharan

18 Responses

1. “We did this with collusion from Great Britain in order that Western oil companies might be free to exploit Iranian oil without regard for just compensation to the Iranian people for that which is theirs.” Is it your contention that oil companies (“Western”, or otherwise) paid nothing for Iranian oil?

2. “some Iranians took some Americans hostage” – well, that’ll make you friends and influence people…

3. “So there has been a tendency for some Iranians to have a bad taste in their mouth or at least some suspicions regarding the US and its intentions.” – in light of the immediately above, I would think it should be the other way around – and justifiably so…

Ok, follow the next two…

4. “we (the USA) have been trying to draw a line in the sand (a red line, no doubt!) with regard to Iran’s nuclear power research and development.” – that’s correct – and one reason for it is –
5. “In the Iranian environment there are always going to be a few loose cannon as well (e.g. their immediate past president).” – you see, it’s generally considered bad form to allow ‘loose cannon’ to have nuclear weapons – especially when they are the president of the country!!! I won’t even go into what this says about the Iranian electorate – or wasn’t it their fault, i.e., the Iranian ‘election’ system was a rigged fraud – which says what about their government – that they should be trusted??? I don’t think so.

6. “Iran may not truly want to use its nuclear development to arm weapons.” – a tactfully, yet terribly, weak statement; unfortuantely, we have to assume the opposite (see 5 above)

Who are you, There is too much in your statements to refute without writing another article but you can educate yourself further by going to the right sidebar and clicking on Iran to read the more than 5 years worth of articles and links that we have written about the need for real diplomatic engagement with Iran. Or you could start by acknowledging the fact that there is a new President in Iran now for one thing.

One thing that I can do is to answer your contention that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. There is no evidence of this with all of the inspections and conjecture. Just yesterday the real power in Iran, The Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a very clear statement that Iran would not try to develop a nuclear weapon because nuclear weapons were against the principles of Islam. He went on to say that he thought that no nation should have nuclear weapons.

You may not have noticed but Iran has a new and reformist President, Hassan Rouhani. He and his appointed nuclear negotiator have signaled a new direct approach to negotiations:

…Tehran’s turnaround is all the more startling in view of the eight, often bizarre, years of Mr. Rouhani’s Holocaust-denying predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who relished every opportunity to ruffle the feathers of Western leaders. But Mr. Ahmadinejad’s bellicose nationalism drove Iran into a diplomatic isolation that left it with Venezuela and Syria for allies and saddled it with debilitating economic sanctions over its nuclear program, analysts said.[…]

So now the major question is whether President Obama will take the opportunity at next week’s meeting of the General Assembly to actually meet with President Rouhani and see if there can be some development of a diplomatic relationship:

In international diplomacy, gestures matter. This is particularly true for efforts to promote real diplomacy between the United States and Iran.

For three decades, the United States has mostly pursued an “Iran cooties” policy. We can’t meet with Iranian leaders, because someone might interpret that to mean that we think that the Iranian government is “legitimate.” OMG! We might get Iran cooties!

It sounds ridiculous, and it is. And it has a real cost in human lives. Because of the “Iran cooties” policy, it’s harder to use diplomacy to help end wars in the Middle East, like the Syrian civil war, or the war in Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, President Obama has a historic opportunity to end the “Iran cooties” policy. Iran’s newly-elected, pragmatic, pro-diplomacy President Hassan Rouhani is going to be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. So is U.S. President Barack Obama.[…]

whoareyou, Mickie and I have belonged to a group that has studied Iran intensely over the past several years. We have studied American policy there, Iran’s history, the views of individual Iranians (some of whom we have interviewed in person)and the impressions of a number of Americans who have traveled in Iran in recent years.

You can benefit from some of our research by following Mickie’s suggestion to look up some of our past blogs in our archives. Of course, you may choose to do your own research.

Sincere Iranians would be the first to tell you that folks operate in Iranian cultural traditions somewhat differently than is typical for Americans. Dialogue tends not to be straight forward and a person may speak round about an issue for some time before allowing her point of view to be obvious. Nonetheless, for the patient foreigner, both complex and simple truths will emerge.

In a way you are making at least half my argument for me. We have so many loose cannon in this country (Graham, McCain, Cheney, Bush II, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,and more recently Obama), we probably ought not to have nuclear weapons or even such an over the top powerful military.

But we do. And we have done terrible things with our military…Iraq and Afghanistan being the most recent.. but we haven’t started a nuclear Armageddon. And neither have the loose cannons in North Korea or Pakistan or Israel.

I don’t want any single other country to have nuclear capability but if Iran did gain such, it would be just as concerned for ultimate self-preservation as the other existing powers. In the meantime, let us work to continue our gradual disarming and encouragement to others to do the same.

The presidents of Iran, whether Ahmadinejad or Rouhani do not have the power to start a war. There are too many competing forces that wield that kind of foreign policy power with the Ayatollah having the ultimate say. However, the personalities of these two recent presidents present contrasts in how the course of events can be influenced by the office of the presidency. The former made it difficult to concentrate on some of the real issues or to figure out, at times, the pulse of the populace.

The current president is setting a tone that seems to reflect the concerns of the electorate and that can set up a platform on which various sides can sit together and hammer out some agreements. Past presidents and foreign ministers have tried this but generally speaking G.W. Bush slapped them down.

So…the issue is as much the abilities of the US elite to be flexible and raise their own diplomatic skills up a notch.

I would be kind of interested in why you and sometimes a few other folks kind enough to comment on our pages have such a visceral, knee-jerk reaction of hostility when a more balanced view of Iran is suggested.

There are factions in Iran that present serious threats to its own citizens having the kinds of freedoms we expect. These are worse in Iran than they are here but we have our negative forces also such as stand your ground laws and badly performed stop and search procedures. And our disproportionate imprisonment of a huge percentage of our population relative to all other nations is a scandal.

Challenges to civil rights and to democratic processes often present huge obstacles, but they are not now at a level that ought to provoke a war of any kind.

I guess you will correct yourself any minute now about who distrusts whom vis a vis the US and Iran. In my post I specifically stated that both sides have had reasons to be suspicious of the other but that these are suspicions that get blown out of proportion by opportunistic politicians and the media. To the extent that our government officials still occasionally rattle those swords…well that is up to us citizens to tell those elites to stop frightening the horses!

Mark, a lot of things have been said about North Korea that have proven to be untrue. A lot has been said about Russia that proves to be untrue if you look closely. I think what you said about Iran would prove untrue in the unlikely event they produce a bomb.

Meanwhile, back here at the ranch how about working toward world multilateral nuclear disarmament? Starting with a nuclear free zone in the Middle East would be a good step forward.

We could have Iran agree not to produce a bomb. We could have Israel give up its nuclear weapons just as Syria may end up giving up their chemical weapons. Then Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other regional states would be very unlikely to pursue their own nuclear weaponry…there would be a veritable domino effect of increased world safety.

Ah Ron, The only question is “whose naivete and whose credulity?” For instance some members of the US media keep mentioning “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” and then they retract that characterization when called on it. Unfortunately the retraction is not in a prominent place in the same media that originally published such references. Does this make the readers and listeners naive and credible?

And then there’s Israel’s unabashed pressure on the United States to use threats of military force and military force itself against Iran. If you read the articles that I’ve linked in my previous comment to Who are you you can see that’s been going on for many years now. Even though there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Here’s a recent example of that relentless pressure by the only nuclear armed country in the region (estimates ranging from 150 to 400 nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems) who continues to deny that it has nuclear weapons but feels “threatened” by a country that does not. Is it naive and gullible to be manipulated in that way??

Published on Friday, September 20, 2013 by Common DreamsDon’t Be Fooled, Says Israel, Bomb Iran Instead Israeli official: ‘No more time for negotiations’ with Iran
– Andrea Germanos, staff writer

“halting production and limiting its stockpiles of 20 percent enriched uranium” – That’s uranium enriched to a level well-above what is necessary to produce electricity in an electric utility, nuclear-fueled, power plant.

“… Iran’s underground Fordo nuclear facility… (a) bunker-like plant…” – Why would you build an underground, bunker-like fissionable material production facility if you were just producing electric power generation-grade material?

“Iran acknowledged in 2009 that it was building the bunker-like plant — but only after U.S. intelligence revealed it to the International Atomic Energy Agency.” – Well, that sure as hell is a “confidence booster” for me -but probably not in a manner you would like…

“The facility is located on an Iranian military base” – which is certainly where I would locate a uranium enrichment plant ‘designed’ to produce electric power production reactor-grade fuel… I mean, I wouldn’t locate a weapons-grade enrichment facility there…

“… and it was built to hold about 3,000 centrifuges — which a senior U.S. official said is the amount needed to build nuclear weapons.” – You do the math.

Hope I provided you with a ‘little (more) dance music’ so you could ‘get jazzed up’ and have ‘a good laugh’…

Who are you [are you a fan of the rock band The Who or the cover group “Who Are You?” Just curious.]

Linda has given you some historical context. Here’s some more direct response to your points (based on an AP report republished in the TU without any startling new additions to the known intelligence.)

1. 20% enriched uranium is necessary for use in medical treatments of cancer and under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which Iran has signed) any country is entitled to use radioactive materials for medical therapeutic purposes. Further if you go back just a bit in the history of this debate at one time Iran agreed to stop producing enriched uranium altogether if other nations supplied it for their uses. As I recall it was the US that rejected that plan. Look it up.

2. If you were neighbors with an insanely aggressive nation that had already bombed several countries in the region, including Syria, Lebanon, and its own occupied territories ~~ and was constantly threatening to attack you militarily while urging its big brother and enabler to do the same. Would you leave your radioactive materials above ground where a few well placed bombs could create a nuclear disaster for your people and possibly the region??

3. As to the number of centrifuges, described by an unnamed sourceafter the US and or Israel used the stuxnet virus in a hostile attack to disable your centrifuges and Israeli intelligence agencies assassinated five of your nuclear scientists (another violation of all international laws) wouldn’t you want a little redundancy in your production capabilities too?

Rather than write a longer comment here are a couple of links that explore this subject further:

whoareyou, do you think that people who have “studied” this issue for years would not already know about the information you have forwarded?

And, yes, indeed, let’s dance.

Much of what is reported (and has been for some time) is disturbing. Given the extreme complexity that is Iran, especially with respect to its interlocking governmental institutions and various actions it has taken with regard to nuclear research, there could be a number of interpretations and we could still miss the boat. I have heard some Iranians and Iranian experts on TV express different outlooks and ideas about the best course for the US to take.

Nonetheless, there are two over-riding themes to consider:

1. Is that muddy motives may serve the purpose of fending off regional enemies of Iran that might become more aggressive if Iran appears weak.
2. Iran may be following the lead of Japan and developing complete nuclear capability without actual production. If either country is about to be attacked, they could complete the final stages relatively quickly.
3.And, I repeat, there are highly knowledgeable people on the world stage, experts in various aspects of Mideastern affairs, who believe that if Iran had a bomb they would know better than to use it. The real danger would be in potential copycats like Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

Subsidiary themes are as follows: reports out of Western intelligence or foreign policy advocates have been saying for many years that Iran is on the brink of manufacturing a bomb and yet none has been produced and we hear pretty much the same rhetoric repeated.

One of the oft stated goals of Iran is to establish the iron clad fact that they have a right to develop nuclear power of any kind. If they do not want to produce a bomb, that is because they are choosing not to, not because somebody told them not to.

Dear Tom,
It’s not a good idea to say “never.” There was actually a 200 year period of peace under the Pax Romana and there have been other brief periods of peace after conquests of large areas of territory.

But I’d also like to point out that “recorded history” only covers a small part of human history. There is anecdotal evidence (from oral traditional records) that during Earth centered and Matriarchical societies, in earlier times there was peace in the world.

Here’s what you said in your comment:

“Looking back through history as far as recorded history exists, there has never been a period of peace. It’s been (at least) one war after another, somewhere. Draw your own conclusions.”

I think that my conclusions are probably different from yours. My conclusions [based on the horrors of wars in my own lifetime and in the 20th and 21st centuries thus far] are that we need to do something to change the model of resorting to military force and violence as a way to settle conflicts.
With the Planet already endangered and with ever shrinking resources and more deadly and impersonal weapons in use during our current time in history we don’t have unlimited time to try something different. I don’t feel that the killing and mistakes of the past need to continue in perpetuity. That’s the urgent and continuing work that Women Against War and a growing number of peace oriented organizations are doing right now. To try and change and expand the possibilities for dealing with conflict.

Here’s a link to the first chapter of Chris Hedges’ book ‘What Every Person Should Know About War’
By CHRIS HEDGES Published: July 6, 2003

“Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history…”

Tom, look on the bright side. Centuries ago we had few if any ways to prevent/treat smallpox, cancer, TB and etc.

Today we greatly reduce the incidence of some communicable diseases and successfully treat many of the conditions I listed.

There is micro surgery to repair the damaged digits of people with Hansen’s (leprosy) disease. There are highly functional artificial knee and hips to extend the quality of life of “seniors”.

Because Queen Elizabeth I couldn’t do something (ride in an airplane?) doesn’t mean we can’t do it.

Plus…if there are 9 incipient conflicts in the world at a given moment just waiting to happen and we prevent 6 of them by mediation, negotiation, sanctions as opposed to killings….then we are profoundly successful.

It will be nice if get to a place of preventing 9 out of 9, but 6 out of 9 will move us forward exponentially especially if some of the six are ones likely to draw in a large number of nations.

You girls are right, in as much as Tom should never have said never. But the reality is, in our life times, peace will not come about because of religion or politics.
Also, as long as the US supports one group over another, it will “never” be peaceful, and 6 out of 9 is NOT good enough.
Before the US helps other counties, I’d think we should first start here in our homeland.
Maybe you girls could pack your bags and head off to Chicago and help stop the violence there.
Maybe stop worrying about someones rights as to profiling and start doing something about someones right to stay alive. You know, the real important things in life! Have a nice weekend.

Fred Dude, I haven’t been called a girl for quite some time, since I’m now a grandmother and I’ve been a grown woman for a long time. You can call me Dude also if you want to or perhaps “Dudette”. I do agree with your point that the United States can’t present itself as a “neutral broker” in a situation where we clearly favor and support one side of a conflict or one country over another in the case of occupation or aggression.

Trying to prevent unnecessary and illegal wars is the kind of work that does attempt to protect the right of people to live in safety and to ultimately stay alive and work, play, attend school, receive decent health care, have a secure source of food and water and a safe home. You’re correct that we need those things here at home and perhaps if we stopped spending billions of dollars on spying and on waging wars and drone attacks we would have the money to provide what people need both at home and (in the case of refugees and victims of war and disasters) abroad as well.

I got a chance to pick some wonderful New York State apples (Macouns and Cortlands) today and I think that it will be a lovely autumn weekend. Thanks for the good wishes and igualmente.

You raise some interesting issues. It’s just that you put an odd spin on what we do. What kind of intervention abroad do you object to in relation to what we often advocate for? Do you object to a serious investment in effort and training of our diplomatic corps? A group that can make a difference in terms of both international trade and reduced tensions among nations….at least bi-lateral relations between the US and specific individual countries.

Many people to the left of center advocated for a military strike in Syria in the last few weeks. I don’t think the women blogging on this site came even close to that position.

Sometimes you really do have to ride a bike and chew gum at the same time. Some efforts abroad that involve direct aid….like food and shelter in refugee camps….are pretty essential to a country that believes in humanitarian governance. Meanwhile, have you not read our various pieces on needing more support for better judicial systems, elimination of excessive incarceration, more spending and attention to mental health services and programs to intervene positively in families at risk of poverty and dysfunction?

Wow!…imagine that the effective Jeremiah Project is spreading from state to state and described as innovative. I have been advocating for that common sense solution for at least two decades.

Okay…saving lives? Many of the social changes we want would save lives….which actually is a human right!

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Women Against War:Supporting non-military ways of solving conflictsAbout us